Advanced Search
- All Databases (4,782)
- Decisions (2,369)
- Resources (2,169)
4,782 result(s)
-
3,176.
Lewis v. The Queen - [1979] 2 SCR 821 - 1979-06-14
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Glanville Williams in his Criminal Law, The General Part (2nd ed., 1961) distinguishes between these meanings: [...] It is this second sense, according to Williams, which is employed in criminal law: [...] In the case at bar, the parties have employed the notion of "motive" in the second of Williams' senses.
-
3,177.
SCR | RCS [1979] vol 1 - 1979-05-01
Canada Supreme Court ReportsM. Williams cite l'arrêt Hatton v. Treeby° pour illustrer ce principe. [...] Solicitor for the Attorney General of Alberta: William Henkel, Edmonton. [...] Procureur du procureur général de l'Alberta: William Henkel, Edmonton.
-
3,178.
Stoneham and Tewkesbury v. Ouellet - [1979] 2 SCR 172 - 1979-05-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
Estates
WILLIAM SYDNEY JOHN WRIGHT of the Village of Stoneham, Province of Quebec, Farmer.
-
3,179.
R. v. Prue - [1979] 2 SCR 547 - 1979-04-24
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
William James Prue Respondent. Her Majesty The Queen Appellant; and
-
3,180.
McLoughlin v. Kutasy - [1979] 2 SCR 311 - 1979-03-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
Dr. William Kutasy (Defendant) Respondent. 1978: November 8, 9; 1979: March 20.
-
3,181.
Guimond v. The Queen - [1979] 1 SCR 960 - 1979-03-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
here, it would be my opinion that the case would be governed by the qualifying clause above‐quoted: see Williams, Textbook on Criminal Law (1978), at pp. 361-2.
-
3,182.
Papalia v. R. - [1979] 2 SCR 256 - 1979-03-06
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Evidence
It is stated by Lord Esher, M.R. in Lucas v. Williams & Sons, (1892) 2 Q.B. at 116:—
-
3,183.
Horvath v. The Queen - [1979] 2 SCR 376 - 1979-02-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
[Ibrahim v. R., supra; Boudreau v. R., [1949] S.C.R. 262; R. v. Fitton, supra; R. v. Isequilla, supra; Naniseni v. R., [1971] N.Z.L.R. 269; R. v. Smith, [1959] 2 Q.B. 35; McDermott v. R., (1948), 76 C.L.R. 501; Martin Priestley (note), 51 Cr. App. R. 1; Sparks v. R., [1964] A.C. 964; R. v. Williams (1968), 52 Cr. App. R. [...] In R. v. Williams[24] the accused had made two written statements, the first on June 7 and the second, confirming the first, on July 18.
-
3,184.
N.C.C. et al. v. Pugliese et al. - [1979] 2 SCR 104 - 1979-02-20
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
Torts
William J. Simpson, for the appellant Dibco Underground Ltd. James I. Minnes, for the appellant H.Q. Golder & Associates Limited.
-
3,185.
Bradburn v. Wentworth Arms Hotel - [1979] 1 SCR 846 - 1978-12-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsLabour law
William Bradburn, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of Local 197 of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union (Plaintiffs) Appellants;
-
3,186.
Construction Montcalm Inc. v. Min. Wage Com. - [1979] 1 SCR 754 - 1978-12-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
William N. Lawton, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Saskatchewan. [...] Solicitor for the Attorney General of Alberta: William Henkel, Edmonton. [...] Solicitor for the Attorney General of Saskatchewan: William N. Lawton, Regina.
-
3,187.
Olympic Towers Ltd. v. Sherman et al. - [1979] 1 SCR 883 - 1978-12-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsAppeal
Eric Williams, for Donald MacLeod, trustee. Morris Kirtzer, for the lienholder.
-
3,188.
SCR | RCS [1978] vol 2 - 1978-12-20
Canada Supreme Court ReportsWilliam Henkel, Q.C., for the intervenor. William Henkel, c.r., pour l'intervenant. [...] Solicitor for the intervenor: William Henkel, Procureur de l'intervenant: William Henkel, Edmonton. [...] Solicitor for the intervenant: William Henkel, Procureur de l'intervenant: William Henkel, Edmonton.
-
3,189.
Cherneskey v. Armadale Publishers Ltd. - [1979] 1 SCR 1067 - 1978-11-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
Publishing Association Ltd.[6], where the question was whether an interrogatory addressed to the state of mind of the defendant who had pleaded fair comment was admissible and after referring to the case of White & Co. v. Credit Reform Association and Credit Index Ltd.[7], Vaughan Williams L.J. said, at p. 413: [...] Speaking of the different considerations affecting the defence of "privilege" on the one hand and "fair comment" on the other, Vaughan Williams, L.J. said at p. 413:
-
3,190.
McInroy et al. v. The Queen - [1979] 1 SCR 588 - 1978-10-31
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Vide also Greenough v. Eccles[6], (per Williams J. p. 802.)) The only link between the two subsections of s. 9 is the concluding provision in subs. [...] (Williams J. at p. 802). Before dealing in detail with the phraseology of s. 9, it may be helpful to consider the basic evidentiary principles.
-
3,191.
Tuer v. R. - [1979] 1 SCR 17 - 1978-10-31
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
William Franklin Tuer (Plaintiff) Appellant; and Her Majesty The Queen (Defendants) Respondent.
-
3,192.
Moore v. The Queen - [1979] 1 SCR 195 - 1978-10-17
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Dr. Williams refers to the case of Hatton v. Treeby[4] as an illustration of this principle. [...] Dr. Williams effectively disposed of the argument in words which I should like to adopt, p. 473: [...] The views expressed by Dr. Williams were adopted in the New Zealand case of Elder v. Evans[9].
-
3,193.
Asamera Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Sea Oil & General Corporation et al. - [1979] 1 SCR 633 - 1978-10-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
Although in Williams v. Peel River Co. the market appears to have risen and then fallen, it seems that the plaintiff was only claiming, as damages for detention, the value at initial default less the value at judgment. [...] (Vide Dawson v. Helicopter Exploration Co. Ltd., supra; Pitfield & Co. Ltd. v. Jomac Gold Syndicate Ltd. et al.[30], at p. 165 (Ont. C.A.); Williams and Cameron v. Keyes and Pyramid Mining Co. Ltd.[31], at p. 568 (B.C.S.C.); Shaw v. Holland[32].) [...] But so far as the circumstances permit, they are to be the ground of conclusions of probability: Williams v. Peel River Land and Mineral Company Ltd. The case is analogous to that of a breach of covenant to re‑deliver shares and prima facie the defendants are held to have prevented the shares from remaining the property of
-
3,194.
Herman et al. v. Deputy Attorney General (Canada) - [1979] 1 SCR 729 - 1978-10-03
Supreme Court JudgmentsTaxation
William Bernard Herman, City Parking Canada Limited, The William Bernard Herman Trust, Musketeers Investments Limited, S.A., Columbus Holdings Limited, Columbus Development Corporation Limited, Dumas Investments Limited, S.A., and City Parking Holding Limited Appellants;
-
3,195.
Conklin v. Smith et al. - [1978] 2 SCR 1107 - 1978-06-29
Supreme Court JudgmentsTorts
William Conklin, Jr. (Plaintiff) Appellant; and Rodney Charles Smith and Phil Hall Ltd. (Defendants) Respondents.
-
3,196.
R. v. Olan et al. - [1978] 2 SCR 1175 - 1978-05-30
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Samuel L. Olan, William H. Hudson and Thomas R. Hartnett III (Defendants) Respondents.
-
3,197.
Attorney General (Que.) et al. v. Farrah - [1978] 2 SCR 638 - 1978-05-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsConstitutional law
William Henkel, Q.C., for the interverior. The judgment of Laskin C.J. and Spence, Dickson and Estey JJ. was delivered by [...] Solicitor for the intervenor: William Henkel, Edmonton. [1] [1976] C.A. 467.
-
3,198.
Dukart v. Corporation of the District of Surrey - [1978] 2 SCR 1039 - 1978-05-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsProperty law
The question as to whether an interest in land may be registered in more than one manner was considered in the case of Rystephaniuk v. Prosken[24], where Williams C.J.K.B. observed in respect of the Manitoba Real Property Act that:
-
3,199.
R. v. Sault Ste. Marie - [1978] 2 SCR 1299 - 1978-05-01
Supreme Court JudgmentsCriminal law
Dr. Glanville Williams has written: “There is a half-way house between mens rea and strict responsibility which has not yet been properly utilized, and that is responsibility for negligence,” (Criminal Law (2d ed.): The General Part, p. 262). [...] It has done so by utilizing the very half-way house to which Dr. Williams refers, responsibility for negligence.
-
3,200.
Adams and al. v. McLeod and al. - [1978] 2 SCR 621 - 1978-03-21
Supreme Court JudgmentsFamily law
Bonnie Lynn Adams and William Walter Adams Appellants; and Libby McLeod and Irene Ramstead Respondents. [...] He was accompanied at that time by Bonnie Lynn Adams, his niece, the present appellant, and her husband, William Walter Adams, her co-appellant. [...] and at the same time a newly filed application for guardianship by William and Bonnie Adams was granted.